HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Sled-pulling, Drag results, Dyno results

Moderators: Greenleaf, KTA, BC847, Richie O

HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby oldestof11 » Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:04 pm

Found this today while doing some VE and VP37 (TDI) research.

180hp/440 tq (converted)
Image

200hp/500tq
Image

Notice the fuel consumption where it peaks in torque. Both of these were done with the VE. The 200hp/500tq graph uses LESS fuel per kW (HP) at a higher RPM than the 180/440...
Jon
93 D250~ Mismatch of cheap parts, trying to look fast going slow
User avatar
oldestof11
14mm rotor
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby Sutter1stgen » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:48 pm

That's some cool info right there. Im glad I got o/d with 3.07 now. I've noticed even with the 6x16s that o/d, and the lower rpm I cruise at, has helped with fuel economy.
Eric

91'w250 with a new pump. This one doesn't chase itself around in a circle.
Sutter1stgen
14mm rotor
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:18 pm
Location: Northern California.

Re: HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby RCCUMMINS89 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:32 pm

Makes sense why my truck gets better fuel economy at higher rpms than my dad's.
89 RC on shortened 92 diesel frame - NV4500 w/dual disc/4.10s on 37s. - Self built pump, "hot screw", lots of timing, True high volume low pressure lift pump, 62fmw/68/.7gated, 77lpm SAC Inj., Studs/O-rings,- 423/1220 Mustang - 11/16/2013 http://www.TheHungryDiesel.com full line dealer, if you don't see it please ask.
RCCUMMINS89
14mm rotor
 
Posts: 4825
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Spirit Lake, ID
Top

Re: HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby oldestof11 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:00 pm

Which is why my 4x4 4.10 equipped trucks got better mileage than "is possible".
Jon
93 D250~ Mismatch of cheap parts, trying to look fast going slow
User avatar
oldestof11
14mm rotor
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Top

Re: HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby Mark Nixon » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:09 am

Slowing engine speed doesn't necessarily help mileage.
'Working" an engine (low RPMs, high loads) will also increase fuel demand.
This is why more transmission gears, with a taller rear gear ratio, tends to work out over fewer transmission gears with the same ratio.

You're keeping the RPM where it needs to be, for the best efficiency, with more gears.
Deeper gears "control" the engine's power range.

I will say that I have gotten my best mileage, which was with 4.10s in a moderately loaded truck, keeping it under 65mph.
That was 28mpg on a 1991.5 with a 5 speed and 2k weight in the bed, on a milder June day in the summer of '04.
BEFORE ULSD.

Mark.
Mark Nixon
Banned
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:26 pm
Top

Re: HP, TQ, Fuel Consumption

Postby 1STGENFARMBOY » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:23 pm

I also got the best MPG with a 5spd / 4:10's in a flatbed cab-chassy 95 1ton.
93 W250 STD CAB, AUTO 3.55, GAUGES, 80HP DDP STICKS, DENNY T ,16CM HOUSING, 60MM GILLETT, VE MAXED,BHAF, BHFF, 366 SPRING,P/S INTERCOOLER, TIMS COOLER TUBS, TIMMING 1/8 BUMP,4in TURBO BACK TO DUEL 5IN STACKS,33 12.50 BFG, HOLLEY BLACK, CONVERTER COOMING.
User avatar
1STGENFARMBOY
14mm rotor
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: PITTSBURG ILL
Top


Return to Competition

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests